Straight Up with Sherri

Saturday, July 09, 2005

INSANITY!


Court affirms partial-birth ban unconstitutional
Critics say judges 'fail to understand the barbarity of the procedure'


A federal appeals court today upheld a district court decision striking down the federal law banning partial-birth abortion.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis agreed with a federal district court judge in Nebraska that the ban, passed by Congress in 2003, is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception for the health of the mother.
Pro-life advocates said the court has exhibited a "failure to understand the barbarity of the procedure."


"This court apparently would have us believe that there is a constitutional right to crush the skull of a baby that is halfway out of the mother's body," said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "Americans overwhelmingly reject this barbaric procedure, and it is their will, not the will of the courts, that will win in the end."

McCaleb argued that health exceptions are not well defined, meaning almost anything can become an exception.

"Including such an exception would render the ban nearly useless," he said. "Moreover, Congress found that the evidence clearly demonstrates that no such exception would ever be needed."

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 says: "A partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures."

ADF funded a friend-of-the-court brief for the 8th Circuit in the case, Carhart v. Gonzales.

In the court's opinion, opinion, Judge Kermit Bye wrote, "When 'substantial medical authority' supports the medical necessity of a procedure in some instances, a health exception is constitutionally required. In effect, we believe when a lack of consensus exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's health by including a health exception."

Read it all


INSANITY! INSANITY! How is SUCKING THE BRAINS OUT OF A BABY'S HEAD WHILE IT IS HALF WAY IN AND HALF WAY OUT ABOUT SAFETY FOR THE MOTHER? DO THEY HAVE ANY IDEA HOW RIDICULOUS THEY SOUND? DO THEY REALLY THINK PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS AND DON'T SEE RIGHT THROUGH THEM?

13 Comments:

  • Interesting separation of powers question. The Congress of the United States of America has FOUND that partial-birth abortion is never necessary to the health of the mother. I believe that a judge which ignores that finding has not engaged in good behavior and is subject to impeachment proceedings. I do not believe that you can substitute your own judgment for the evidentiary findings of the Congress of the United States.

    I believe these decisions shall be overturned by the next SCOTUS.

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 7:22 PM  

  • From what I understand about appellate courts (from the Schiavo case), its role is to verify correct application of law...not to determine the facts of the case. So it really seems like the original court's determination of fact should be the topic here, not the appeal court's review of the rule of law.

    So, going back to that original federal court decision...it seems like the presiding judge made his own determination of fact. Was he bound to the facts determined by Congress? Or should he have been allowed to make his own determination? Is that what you meant by "interesting separation of powers question"?

    By Blogger WaterOverTheRidge, at 10:03 PM  

  • Water over the ridge -- that is exactly what I meant. Congress held hearings and gathered a large amount of evidence. As I recall, the original trial-level (federal district?) courts here made an evidentiary finding without actually reviewing any evidence and at 180 degrees difference from Congress. I believe that does not fall within good behavior.

    While an appellate court may not find new facts, they may however find that a District Court has ruled contrary to the known facts on the record. In this case where the lower court has made a clear error of fact, an appellate court can easily so find and defer to Congress.

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 8:02 AM  

  • If a Baby is viable post 24 weeks, how then would it be benficial to suck the brains out of it? My oldest dau. Lost her first baby at 19 1/2 weeks. The nurse told her they could try to save it if she had been closer to 22 weeks, this was 8 years ago. It would have had a better chance then. Now we are saying that 24 weeks a baby has a fighting chance. Why Suck their brains out then?
    Gosh I remember med shows(emergency and medical center) when I was a kid, when the Drs. would certainly try to save the lives of both when the mother had a problem, today NO thoughts are given to the life of the baby.
    JUST SICK SICK SICK!

    By Blogger KC, at 1:00 PM  

  • DN

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:39 PM  

  • I believe in pro-choice, however; judging by the description of the partial-birth method, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a birth being partial. If it's a living thing it can't be partially living. Therefore, that is murder and KC is right, that is sick. That is a baby already. My daughter was in my stomach kicking at 21 weeks. If you were to deliver prematurely at 24 weeks, there is a great chance that the child would live. So I think that the practice should be outlawed by the court. If you delivered a baby then killed it you would be jailed for murder. The only difference here is that it is killed by a medical professional. (DN 5626)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:46 PM  

  • "If you were to deliver prematurely at 24 weeks, there is a great chance that the child would live."

    That simply is not true. With all of the modern technologies available (as of 2005), babies born at 24 weeks still have only a 40 percent survival rate - and a 40 percent chance of developing a life-affecting handicap.

    This is a dramatic turning point in the viability of the infact. At 23 weeks, the survival rate is just 10 percent - and the handicap rate is 90 percent.

    The fact that your daughter was kicking at 21 weeks does not mean that she could survive outside the womb at that time!

    Next time, get your facts straight before spouting off about things you know nothing about.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:34 PM  

  • How is SUCKING THE BRAINS OUT OF A BABY'S HEAD WHILE IT IS HALF WAY IN AND HALF WAY OUT ABOUT SAFETY FOR THE MOTHER?

    Nice job framing your argument for maximum emotional effect. Thankfully there are people like you who tell doctors and other professionals with extensive medical training how to do their jobs. There are many difficult decisions that must be made in the course of practicing medicine. Doctors don't need politicians (and others who know little about science and medicine) telling them what to do on the operating table.

    By Blogger trl_path, at 5:50 AM  

  • This article shows that people should think or experiment before they decide on any thing. I am against abortion and think that killing a baby is wrong. Before having sex, a person should think about the things that could happen and think if they could handle those situation if it happens. If killing a baby when the baby is about to come into the world, it wouldn't be good for the mind because I feel that it is murder.(TB8068)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:38 PM  

  • Ok. This is truly crazy. I am totally against abortion unless of course having the baby endangers the mother. Even worse, partial birth abortion is plain crazy. There are so many other procedures that can kill the baby before it is even developed. Why wait that long after you gain the weight and go through all the other physical changes to kill the baby? If the baby can breathe, cry, and see....it is developed enough to feel PAIN......

    DLM1930

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:01 AM  

  • What people fail to understand is that these babies are so far along, they often have the potential of living outside of the womb. Also if a regular abortion causes discomfort and pain, what would it feel like to have a partial abortion further along in pregnancy. - D.R. 6868

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:10 PM  

  • Help! I am lost. I was searching for add health link man
    and somehow ended up here. How that happened I don't know, however I do like your Blog a lot. Would you mind if I add your Blog to my favorites page so others can visit?

    By Blogger Tom Naka, at 4:34 PM  

  • Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

    I have a Health blog. It pretty much covers Dieting Health Fitness Exercise related stuff.

    Come and check it out if you get time

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home